It is really frustrating when you don’t acknowledge what I’m saying.
If we agree that Socialism has one definition and one alone, regardless of what some political party’s label is, then we’re good.
You get why I’m sensitive to this issue, right? For decades, US socialists have been trying to “steal” the relative successes of European social welfare states and label it “socialism” in order to make that philosophy of government more palatable to the rubes in America who aren’t educated on the subject. This allows them to skirt the abject failures of the REAL socialists (Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and most recently people like Chavez) and claim that the problem was only a matter of implementation.
Risky game, that.
There is no dilution of the terms. Nobody is confused. It’s all very straightforward. When someone today says “I am a Socialist”, do you really think they’re chomping at the bit to take away everyone’s private property?
No. But what I intend to force them to do, in my own limited ability to do so, is to state in specific terms what it is they believe. No ambiguity, no wiggle room. If you say you’re a socialist but you’re really just for higher taxes and more welfare, like Crazy Uncle Bernie did during the campaign, I’m going to slap that down the same way the Danish government official slapped Bernie down. The Scandinavian countries are rabid free marketers and their economy is (in many ways) less regulated than ours is. They are not “socialist” in the least.
Now you’re just being disingenuous.
No, I’m not, for several reasons:
ONE. Nobody is claiming that any economy is a pure “anything”. So, to your point, the existence of one or two legitimate examples of production ownership in a capitalist economy the size of the US is not any sort of proof that socialism, as a governmental system, “works.”
TWO. We’re talking infrastructure, here. You could nationalize all the energy utilities in the nation if you wish, and it still wouldn’t violate capitalist principles, which *in general* puts the responsibility of the creation and maintenance of the infrastructure required for the free market to function on the government. Fans of socialism like to cite the Interstate Highway System can claim that’s an example of socialism. That’s bunk.
THREE. The distinction about “going concern” matters. It would be impossible, for example, Aetna to create something that looked exactly like Medicare and run it; they’d lose their shirts — Medicare requires a constant infusion of taxpayer funds to function. Hence, not socialism.
Well it’s good that you finally acknowledged what I am not saying. I’ve been trying to get through to you about it for a while; and I don’t think I was subtle about that!
Well, you’re walking a rhetorical tightrope vis a vis the definition of socialism which I think it my responsibility to knock people off of. :-)